#4-The Prospects Get Brighter for the Protection of Children as the Nobel Peace Prize Is Awarded to a Child and for the Protection of Children (and Not to Pope Francis)

This week while searching for a topic I felt like sharing on the blog I looked at some of the websites suggested on the right hand side of the class Argumentation and Critical Thinking Blog. I had never visited many of these sites and wanted to see what information I could find. I wanted to find an article where most, if not all of the information was cogent. I think I found a pretty good article that fits that description. I visited the Justia site and found an interesting article in the Civil Rights section about the Nobel Peace Prize. The article is titled, “The Prospects Get Brighter for the Protection of Children as the Nobel Peace Prize Is Awarded to a child and for the Protection of Children (and Not to Pope Francis).” The article states that the Norwegian Nobel Committee received the most nominations in history this year. It also said that before the announcement the media focused on Pope Francis and Edward Snowden. The Pope was the favorite to win.

The Committee made the historic announcement that the winners would be Malala Yousafzai and Kailash Satyarthi for their work on the education and protection of children. This was so historic because it is the first time a child has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. (Malala is still 17.) A few years ago, instead of being a hero for speaking out on behalf of children she would have been one who should “be seen and not heard”. It is also historic because it is the first time the award has been awarded solely for the protection of children. The article goes on to say that both recipients have been outspoken about the education of children and the need to rescue children. Interestingly, the award generated opposition to Malala in her homeland. The article stated that because this prestigious award was given to a child it should give hope to children who are “crushed by fanatical Muslims,” and give hope to oppressed children’s advocates worldwide.

It is said that this is an important moment in the civil rights movement for children. I had never heard of such a thing so this intrigued me. In the history of the Nobel Peace Prize “ninety-five Nobel Peace Prizes have been awarded, to 88 men, 15 women, and 22 individual organizations.” Even more interesting is that the typical categories have been for the “peace movement,” “negotiation,” and “world organizing.”  A few other awards have been given for humanitarian and human rights issues. In 2003, the award was given for women’s and children’s rights, but this is the first time children have been the main focus.

Here is where the article gets really interesting. The article talks about how the “scourge of child sex abuse and trafficking is impossible to overestimate.” Then the article takes a turn and says that the Roman Catholic Church, which Pope Francis is the leader of, has been the “institutional home for clergy abusers and bishop abettors in large numbers over many decades, if not centuries.” It claims that the Pope was nominated for his peacemaking gestures, but he has had a “sorry history of cover-up in Argentina.” It claims that the Pope has moved slowly to protect children and punish abusers.

 The article claims that if the Pope would have won the award it would have sent an implicit message to all of the victims that their “needs have been considered second-order.” Instead, by awarding two individuals who have tried to help children and protect children they sent the message to the powerful people that argue they should have won the award because they have made so many other fine contributions that the endangerment of children is not acceptable no matter what other good you have done.

The article says that Pope Francis has a long way to go before he could receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The world and those who thought Pope Francis should win have a long way to go and “much left to do to protect our children.”

This article made me think about a few different things. I was so happy that these two individuals won the award so that the education and protection of children could come in the spotlight. I was interested in and agree with the statement that this is “an important moment in the civil rights movement for children.” I hadn’t really thought about children needing a civil rights movement, but obviously they do. The article mentioned that we have a problem here in the United States as well and referred to an article titled,God v. The Gavel:the Perils of Extreme Religious Liberty which talks about children here in the states who are in danger and need rescuing. I had not really thought about the problem we have right here in our own backyards.

I think this article is cogent in the reporting of details. Some might say that it makes a few generalizations when speaking of the Catholic Church and those who were speculating on who would win the Nobel Peace Prize and why. I think the information in the article is cogent and is backed up by other news sources and articles that show the problems within the Catholic Church. I do not think it is a problem only in the Catholic Church, but the information given is cogent. I also think it is a cogent statement to say that those who speculated that the Pope would win did probably not think about any of the bad things the Pope and Catholic Church have done or the Civil Rights of Children.

 

#3-How a presidential candidate’s personal life changed political journalism

 

 

I was watching tv with my husband last week when a story came on that interested me. The story was on Thursday, October 2, 2014 on PBS News hour. The story is about Politics and Journalism. It states that in 1987 a presidential candidate’s extramarital dalliance was made public. This was the first time that journalists had reported about a political figure’s personal life in that way. The interview was with Matt Bai, the author of the book titled “All the Truth Is Out: The Week Politics Went Tabloid.”

The question is asked if politics changed or journalism changed. Bai says he thinks that both of them changes. He says it was not like a light switch came on, it was more like everything had been stirring in the culture in the mid-1980’s and the decision was made to treat a presidential candidate differently than they had been treated before.

The next question was asked if Bai believed the change was for the better or the worse. Bai says he believes things changed for the worst, adding that not everything that came before that was great. He says that there was a certain “coziness and Clubbiness” prior to that. Young journalists started questioning that.

Bai says he thinks that after that story, the ethos of political journalism shifted from covering ideas and world views and agendas to exposing the lies. There was a new focus on scandals. It reduced people to narrowly defined moments in a person’s life. It was usually their worst moment.

Bai says that he remembered that from that campaign on character was the central part of the narrative of who a candidate was and how voters made their decisions. He asks, “in what context do you define a person’s character, because it encompasses a lot of things. Do they duck votes? Do they lie to their constituents? Is there corruption? All of these things are all a part of public character and private character as well.” He says that the shift began to disqualify someone based on one instance even if it has nothing to do with their position. When the candidate in 1987 was caught on a weekend cruise with a model he was asked whether he thought adultery was something presidential candidates should engage in.

What motivated Bai to write the book is the fact that because Hart, the 1987 presidential candidate, was the first to be caught he is still trying to undo the stigmatism years later. It has been hard for him to overcome the guilt and the unfairness because he sees politicians like Bill Clinton move past scandal and succeed. Hart is not willing to do the things other politicians will do to rehabilitate his image. Bai says that is the “gripping, compelling, human story that really transcends politics.”

Bai is asked how come he thinks other politicians who are caught in scandals cam overcome them. Why are they a success and Hart is not? Bai says that some people believe politicians have just learned to work through all of it and the public is desensitized. He thinks that we have actually changed the definition of political leadership and the definition of fitness. He thinks some people were driven away because they did not want to be under the microscope and we reward those who will do anything, subject their family to anything, tell lies to evade traps and find their way into office.

The final question for Bai is whether or not the reporters who told the story about Hart had any regrets for doing so. Bai says that they all seem to feel satisfied with what they have done. He says he understands because any one of us may have done the same thing. He just feels bad because he thinks it is misremembered. He says it is the job of the journalists who were there and those who came after to stand up and say that they have the record wrong and they need to think about the ramifications of what they do as an industry. The person giving the interview says that he thinks Bai’s book is an interesting read and should be required for a journalism class.

The reason this story interested me so much is because we had been talking about how we need to hear both sides of an issue and then do some critical thinking before we let our biases and our prejudices make a decision for us. We tend to jump to conclusions and to assume the worst in people if we are not careful. We need to think about the ramifications of our quick judgments and decisions. I also find this interesting because it is true that Journalist need to consider the ramifications of every story they present as facts and news.

This story was cogent for me. I think Matt Bai was honest about the facts that happened when he believes journalism changed for the worse. He said it was not perfect before, but when Hart's scandal was exposed, journalism changed. History will show that it is cogent to say that character became the central focus of a political campaign after that. Even though an affair does not really affect how a president will do his job, it is something that has become a focus now. The story is cogent for me because it has historical facts to back it up.

 

Common Core: Rotten to the Core or Common Core for the common good?

Imagine that you are hungry and need some food to improve your situation. A group of people give you an apple. You look at the apple and it has some blemishes and a bruise or two. Do you say the apple is rotten to the core, or would you take the apple and eat the parts that are good and cut off the bad parts? The argument states that the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are rotten to the core, but I would like to suggest that the common core, while not perfect, is a step toward the common good.

The argument states that Common Core is a nationalized education K-12 program that is led by private interest groups with the power being centralized in the federal government who have a national agenda. The definition of the word Nationalized is to put under state control or ownership. Clearly not a Federal program. According to the Core Standards website, “The state-led effort to develop the Common Core State Standards was launched in 2009 by state leaders, including governors and state commissioners of education from 48 states, two territories and the District of Columbia, through their membership in the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). State school chiefs and governors recognized the value of consistent, real-world learning goals and launched this effort to ensure all students, regardless of where they live, are graduating high school prepared for college, career, and life. The standards are informed by: the best state standards already in existence, the experience of teachers, content experts, states, and leading thinkers, and feedback from the public.”

The Common Core State Standards Initiative was also in partnership with Achieve, Inc.; ACT and the College Board. Achieve is an independent, bipartisan, nonprofit education reform organization based in Washington D.C. that helps states raise academic standards and graduation requirements, improve assessments, and strengthen accountability. The National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) received nearly 10,000 comments on the standards during two public comment periods. Many of the comments from teachers, parents, school administrators, and other citizens concerned with education policy helped shape the final version of the standards.

The misconception of the CCSS being a federal government program undoubtedly happened because the Obama administration saw the group had come up with a great set of standards and decided to latch onto it as if it were their own program. Enter No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the program in place before the CCSS. All schools had to fill out 40 check boxes to get a 100% grade by the year 2014 or they would be considered a failing school. Many states were opting out of NCLB.  States had to fill out a waiver if they did not think they would get 100 percent under NCLB by 2014. Part of the waiver said states had to list standards that they have in their state in order to be applicable for this waiver. The federal government couldn't dictate what the standards would be.  Most states were using the standards that the governors (NGA), superintendents (CCSSO), and Achieve had put in place (CCSS) because they worked.  Oklahoma was one of the states who tried to get a waiver. The governor signed a bill that repealed the Common Core so they had to come up with their own standards. Oklahoma didn't have anything in place when they applied for the last waiver so they were denied.  Indiana got their waiver approved because they came up with standards that were rigorous enough to work and Oklahoma did not.

Because the Federal government denied the waiver to Oklahoma many people think CCSS is under the federal government. This is not true. The CCSS are great and many people like the standards. The problem is they don't want the federal government having control of education in the states. What they don't understand is that the federal government tied themselves to the standards and to NCLB with the waivers so it looks like the federal government is running the program when they're not. The real question seems to be is it that people don’t like the CCSS or do they not like the federal government getting involved with the CCSS?  According to Laura Hesson, the Washington County School District School Board Vice-President, “Districts choose the curriculum and there's hundreds of things that they have in the curriculum and the teachers choose which standards they will teach that year.” According to Achieve.org, “The federal government will not govern the Common Core State Standards. The Common Core was and will remain a state-led effort. States and local school districts will drive implementation of the Common Core.”

The argument also states that the common core is the cause of a decline in educational standards in the last few years. Some people think that we are a year to two years behind other states and countries because of the CCSS. They claim that in math for instance, students are not taught Algebra until 9^th grade. This is not true. The standards show that there are pieces of algebra taught before the eighth grade. Students have pieces of algebra, geometry, and trigonometry taught each year and they get more and more complex. All the pieces are taught at a low level for Math I, at a higher level for Math II, and at an even higher level in Math III. If the data and statistics really show we are behind other states and countries now, then the question is, where were the students before implementing the CCSS because we have raised the bar and the math is now more rigorous then it was a few years ago.

Another argument stated is that seniors in schools who have the CCSS are not prepared for college. The claim is that students will need to take more math classes at a 2 year college just to be admitted to a 4 year university. This begs a few questions to be answered. Where does this data come from? The seniors who are still in high school right now are the first class of students who have had the CCSS all 4 years of high school. Students had Math I as a freshman, Math II as a sophomore, and Math III as a junior.  During their senior year they are prepared to take a college math class if they want to because they have completed all the required Math classes. How many students four years ago as seniors were prepared to take college math? Because the current seniors are the first to go through all the common core standards where's the data coming from that says they're not prepared for college and that they have to take extra classes before they're ready for a 4 year university?

One final argument of the CCSS is the belief that data gathered from assessments is given to the federal government. According to the CCSS website, “There are no data collection requirements for states adopting the standards. Standards define expectations for what students should know and be able to do by the end of each grade. Implementing the Common Core State Standards does not require data collection. The means of assessing students and the use of the data that result from those assessments are up to the discretion of each state and are separate and unique from the Common Core.” They are working on a common assessment that states can adopt and use, but states can choose whether or not to use these assessments. The Utah State Office of Education (USOE) has had a student level data warehouse since 1998. The USOE has reported aggregate data to the federal government since the 1970s. The new computer adaptive assessment system (SAGE) will not change any of the data that are collected or reported. The USOE DOES NOT collect information on political affiliations or beliefs; sexual behavior or attitudes; religious practices, psychological or behavior testing, DNA, student address or e-mail, or income of the student or family. The state of Utah has received money from the Federal government to improve the security of data collection, but it was not “Race to the Top” money and does not have a connection to the Common Core.

When it comes to the CCSS the one thing everyone can agree upon is that they have become a highly debated topic. While I agree that the CCSS are far from perfect or the end all fix all for our education system, I do think it is a step in the right direction. Michael Cohen, President of Achieve said, the standards “provide a clear path – from kindergarten to high school graduation – for college and career readiness for all students. Importantly, they provide teachers, administrators, parents and students with the information they need to succeed.”  We can choose to take a bite out of the sweet part of the apple by embracing the CCSS and improving education for students in our nation or we can continue doing things the way we use to do because the Core is not quite perfect.

#2-Supreme Court Will Consider Abercrombie's Religious Discrimination Case

A model at the front entrance to the Abercrombie & Fitch flagship store in New York City.

I was looking around on the NPR Website and came across an article about a Supreme Court case which intrigued me. Because this article was a Supreme Court Case, I wanted to know if the reporting was cogent or fallacious. The case will look at concerns about Abercrombie & Fitch and their hiring practices. The issue is whether or not A & F discriminated against a woman who wore a head scarf.

Bloomberg explains:

"Samantha Elauf was 17 in 2008 when she applied for a sales job at an Abercrombie Kids store in a mall in Tulsa. She had been told by a friend who worked for the retailer that wearing a hijab wouldn't be a problem—as long as it wasn't black. Sales associates can't wear black at Abercrombie.

"During her interview, Elauf wore a head scarf and the assistant manager scored her style a 6, which was good enough to be hired. When the assistant manager sought approval for Elauf's hijab, though, a supervisor said the head scarf didn't meet Abercrombie's look policy. Hats are not allowed at Abercrombie. The supervisor later said he didn't know that Elauf wore the scarf for religious reasons. Elauf wasn't hired."

A lawsuit was filed and Elauf won; however, an appeals court reversed the decision and said that she should have asked for a religious exemption during the interview.

The Supreme Court will have to decide if Abercrombie & Fitch knew that she wore the scarf for religious reasons or if she just did not fit their “look book”. They will also have to decide if a retail company can even have a “look book” or if that is discrimination.  This is very interesting and I will be interested to see how the Supreme Court decides. It seems that you could argue the case either way. I am jumping to the conclusion that A & F knew she wore it for religious reasons and that she would have had it on every time she came to work or they would have just told her about their policy to not allow hats and let her decide to take it off or leave.

A few years ago Hollister was in our mall in St. George. I was surprised to find out that they discriminate on people according to their size. I have a son who has huge thighs and another who is 6 feet 7 inches tall. I could never find jeans that would fit them. One day I asked why they never had the sizes I needed in stock and the worker said that they only sold clothes to smaller and average size people. If a person is too tall, too fat, or has too big of thighs (as my football son did) the company did not want them wearing their label. The store had a reputation of supplying clothing only to those who were the perfect size and no one else had the right or privilege to wear their clothing. I had to shop somewhere else for their jeans. I just figured it is their store and their reputation and my boys did not fit in.

Religious liberty was central to the Founding Fathers’ vision for America and I am all for equal opportunity employment. I definitely think the First Amendment is important. I also think a company has the right to decide who they hire if their store or business depends solely on its appearance and reputation. If the clothing store wants to attract a certain kind of shopper they should be able to choose who they hire. They can require certain reasonable dress code restrictions and should be able to enforce them. It seems like a person would not really want to work at a business they were not welcome at. I guess it is just so easy to sue a company over discrimination these days. Having said all of that I can see how it gives the company a right to say that anyone they do not like does not fit their “look book”.  

I think this article is a bit one sided and even fallacious because it leans toward the fact that A& F are guilty of discrimination. The article points out another time that the company was in trouble over alleged discrimination and how they ended up paying a $71,000 settlement and agreeing to change its policy. Some of the facts in the article are cogent, but because of the way it is written it is fallacious and one sided on what facts the writer chose to report. The writer is telling you what they want you to hear which is that A & F discriminates against people. I will be following this story to see how it turns out.

How well do you do social media?

 

According to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HIS) website more than 550 victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation have been identified by special agents in the first 8 months of 2014. 430 of these victims were located in nearly every corner of the United States.  288 girls were victimized compared to 264 boys. These statistics are a reminder about how dangerous the Internet can be. There are many ways for children and teens to connect through social media today. Smart phones and Wi-Fi have made connecting to social media sites just a click away. Like it or not, social networks are now part of our society and new ones are popping up all the time. Snapchat, Ask.fm, Tinder, and KIK Messenger pose real risks to children, therefore parents should be better educated about the social media their children are using."

Most Americans agree that social media sites like Kik messenger, Snapchat, Ask.fm, and Tinder are easily accessed by children and are some of their most common activities. Any website that allows social interaction is considered a social media site. Just when you think you know all of these sites, new ones pop up and gain popularity among youth.  These sites offer entertainment and communication. Because not all of these sites are healthy environments for children it is important for parents to become aware of new sites and help their children avoid those that might pose potential problems.

Ask.fm is set up in a question and answer format. Users must be 13 years old, but there is no way to make sure they are. The unmonitored site is used anonymously, does not have security settings, and is open for inappropriate content.

According to the App Store: “Tinder finds out who likes you nearby and connects you with them if you’re also interested. It’s the new way to meet people around you.” Users are anonymous until they both like each other. This App is rated for ages 12+ due to “infrequent/Mild Sexual Content or Nudity; Infrequent/Mild Profanity or Crude Humor; Infrequent/Mild Mature/Suggestive Themes. The Tinder app reveals the user’s location so they can meet for a “hook-up”. It is promoted as one of the best one night stand apps.

 Kik is a messaging app for smart devices which allows the user to send texts, pictures, and videos to other Kik users for free. Kik states that users must be 17 years or older, but there is no way to make sure they are. Kik uses usernames and not phone numbers and often these usernames are shared with others on platforms like Instagram.

Snapchat is an app that lets users send pictures and video that disappear after 10 seconds. Users must be 13 years and older, but there is no way to make sure they are. The images do not really go away because someone can screenshot the picture, they can be recovered, and signing the agreement for the App gives Snapchat the legal right to those Photos.

Most children on these social sites are unaware of the risks involved. Most social media Apps have good intentions, but can be dangerous if not used appropriately. According to Detective John Stirling, “The kids might be completely legitimate, not intending anything bad to happen, but unknowingly, they can put themselves in a bad situation.” The following are some of the known dangers to social networking sites: Child predators, cyber-bullying, exposure to inappropriate material i.e. pornography, privacy issues, hacking and password finding, Internet addiction, caught on camera, job background check issues, and potential problems at place of employment.  

This list may grow as technological advances continue and social media Apps are developed. Children need to know that if they post pictures of landmarks or while Location Services is on predators can map their location. Kik contains other Apps that are not verified with ITunes or Google Play. They are designed for adults and may contain pornography. Many apps do not leave a trail that parents can easily follow because they work around parental controls or don’t even offer them. This makes it easier for online predators to meet, interact with, and lure unsuspecting children into sharing information or even meeting in person.

Even when children take measures to make sure their information is available to only a few people, these measures can be bypassed or hacked. Over time, they disclose all kinds of information in a social networking site. Someone can piece together all this information to steal their identity. Websites give users the tools to let the world know about them, and who they are. Social Networking Sites can also be very addicting. Children may get caught up in visiting the social sites more often and spending enormous amounts of time checking out what others are doing and posting their own deeds. They may waste time at work and may end up spending less face time with family and friends.

More and more, recruiters and HR staff are using social networking sites to complete background checks for job candidates.  Entries in today's social networking sites may haunt users in the future when they enter the job market. Entries may seem temporary because they can be deleted if you choose. However, others (friends or even strangers) that saw the entries may have printed, saved a copy, or even re-posted them on their pages.  Posts or pictures could end up divulging confidential information or creating a legal liability for an individual or the company. Because of social networking, an individual’s personal life and work life may no longer be separate.

Because not all of these sites are healthy environments for children it is important for parents to become aware of new sites and help their children avoid sites that might pose potential problems. Detective John Stirling teaches tech safety courses to kids and their parents. He says, “There's a technology gap and kids are so much more advanced than even the most tech-savvy parent.” He says awareness is key in keeping kids safe. Parents need to be aware of the Apps on their children’s devices. If they hear about a dangerous App they need to check and make sure their child does not have that App. Parents need to set up a password with a pin so that children can’t download any Apps without their knowledge.  They also need to know all of their children’s passwords and know what accounts their children have. Parents can check to see what App’s have been downloaded.  For Apple devices go to the App store and look for a small cloud symbol indicating what has been downloaded even if it is no longer installed. For Android devices, go to the Google Play Store and visit “My Apps.”  Click “All” to see which Apps were downloaded but not installed. They will have the word “Free” next to it, rather than “Installed.”

Two expert panels, established by Congress to investigate the best ways to protect kids online, found the combination of education, filtering software and tools enabling parents to make better decisions, were most effective.  One of the best things about user empowerment tools is that they work against all websites, they adjust to match natural age progression, and they can be tailored to meet the values of individual families. Education is so powerful because it “transcends the boundaries of the home- wherever a child is, he will have the ability to make smart choices for himself about what he does online.” Two separate expert panels that looked at the issues agree that education and user empowerment tools are key to protecting children online. They emphasized that education is the most effective way to protect children. Congress has even been urged to fund programs to promote media literacy for both adults and children, which is the most effective way to protect children online. “Compared to other countries, our investment in technology and media literacy is inadequate and piecemeal in nature.” 

Eric Qualman said, “We don’t have a choice on whether we DO social media, the question is how well we DO it.” Technological advances and social media sites are not going away. There are more and more of them popping up all the time. They are becoming easier and easier to access by adults and children alike. There are risks to children every time they download a new App or chat with someone online. Because social media sites like Kik, Ask.fm, Tinder, and Snapchat pose risks to children and can’t be controlled or monitored it is important for parents to be aware of their children’s Apps, discuss the dangers of these sites with their children, and monitor their children’s Internet use more carefully.

 

#1-Landmark $554 million settlement signed between feds, Navajo Nation

Landmark $554 million settlement signed between feds, Navajo Nation

 

I was wandering around on Facebook and came across a news report that my niece had shared on her page. It is a story about a historic lawsuit in Window Rock, Arizona which awarded the Navajo Nation $554 million dollars last Friday. I had to click on the link to DeseretNews.com and read the entire story because I couldn’t imagine why President Obama would be awarding that much money to anyone. I thought this story would definitely be fallacious. I was wrong. 

The government awarded the Navajo Nation "the largest payout ever to an Indian tribe." The charges are against the Federal Government and claim that they "failed to manage, invest and account for tribal funds and resources in relation to the exploitation of oil, gas and other minerals."

The Department of the Interior and the Navajo Nation have been fighting over this lawsuit for years. They are hopeful that this settlement will bring peace, but now the debate is over how the money will be spent. The Navajo Nation is hopeful that the money will be used to make much needed improvements to the reservation. Improvements they say will give hope to the residents. Some of the improvements may include electricity, phone, water, and power lines. Public meetings will be held to get public input and then a strategy will be put together to make it work.

There are also similar smaller settlements which have been paid out since October of 2010. The Obama Administration has settled 80 cases totaling more than $2 billion and they are trying to settle other cases without going to trial. Hundreds of thousands of Native Americans "received final cash payments last week in one of the largest settlements involving individual trust funds in U.S. history. "

I found the trolling comments on the Facebook post to be very insightful. There were many who made generalizing and stereotypical comments about how the money would actually be used. They inferred that the money would be wasted and not really used to help make the improvements they claim they need. Others made claims that only a few of the leaders and certain family members would even see any of the money. Some made comments that it is their right to do whatever they want with the money and the "white men" need to stay out of their business. A quick response to that comment was, "very true, but what do we do when the money runs out because they did what they wanted? Then it's the white man problem again."

There are so many things which could be said about this article and the trolling comments left on the Facebook page.  While I believe that the article was cogent in the way it reported the story and the facts, I think the payout and some of the reasons behind it may be fallacious. I also think the comments were almost comical and were perfect example of the things we discussed Tuesday night in class. Many of the comments demonstrated our prejudice or precritical thinking. Probably most of those who posted had an unprovisional way of looking at the topic. I would definitely need more background and information in order to make an openminded or provisional decision on lawsuits like this. What do you think?

 

“If a man is offered a fact which goes against his insticts he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.” — Bertrand Russell, Roads to Freedom

I found this quote on a website called global issues while I was looking for an article to post on my blog. I think this quote is a perfect artifact for what we discussed Tuesday night. We are very quick to accept ideas which are in line with our actions, opinions, and beliefs. We tend to be unprovisional about something that goes against our instincts. I think that this quote is cogent and is true for most of us.